Thought Experiment about School CCW

[Quiet]

Hasn't Israel been doing this since the seventies or so?

Yes, they have.
Initially armed by the Israeli Gov with M-1 Carbines and Uzi MGs.
It was done in response to Hamas & other terrorists organizations that were targeting schools (soft targets).
After they started arming the teachers & school administrators, the attacks stopped.

Israeli school teacher...

 

[xfyrfiter]

That photo would scare the bejesus out of the liberal populace that elected the pres.

 

[gossamer]

I would prefer to see armed security. I'd also like to balance this by pointing out that the first victim in this tragedy was very well armed and wasn't able to stop this disturbed man from killing innocent people.

 

[barnbwt]

better to have an armed school staff than a trained policeman

I think so; it's a lot cheaper and more practical to train and arm one hundred teachers, who then go on to do their jobs normally (as well as some qualification/practice outside of their usual duties). Their pay would increase commensurately, which I'm sure they'd all be in favor of (not to mention a likely decrease in discipline-challenged students, who would finally have a reason to respect their teachers, now sworn to defend their students unto death).

I have never thought it particularly useful for two or three armed officers to watch over 3000+ kids (like in my highschool). When seconds count, they are still minutes away. Only they are also more likely to stay put (so to speak) securing the people in their "wing" of the building, before moving to engage the shooter. It's also very impractical to have a trained, armed officer in every classroom (or even every five classrooms) sitting around doing nothing all day until the need arises.

I'm not in favor of emualting Israel simply because their system works. They are in a dire situation, so drastic answers are their only possible solutions. So great are their security threats, they have been forced to adopt what is basically a police state to defend themselves. Logically justifiable in their situation, but complete and utter overreach in ours. The peace at home our military has fought for and won over the years is what enables us to enjoy our constitutional freedoms and live without fear of attack; Israel has not yet achieved this.

TCB

 

[Warp]

I think so; it's a lot cheaper and more practical to train and arm one hundred teachers, who then go on to do their jobs normally (as well as some qualification/practice outside of their usual duties). Their pay would increase commensurately, which I'm sure they'd all be in favor of (not to mention a likely decrease in discipline-challenged students, who would finally have a reason to respect their teachers, now sworn to defend their students unto death).

I have never thought it particularly useful for two or three armed officers to watch over 3000+ kids (like in my highschool). When seconds count, they are still minutes away. Only they are also more likely to stay put (so to speak) securing the people in their "wing" of the building, before moving to engage the shooter. It's also very impractical to have a trained, armed officer in every classroom (or even every five classrooms) sitting around doing nothing all day until the need arises.

I'm not in favor of emualting Israel simply because their system works. They are in a dire situation, so drastic answers are their only possible solutions. So great are their security threats, they have been forced to adopt what is basically a police state to defend themselves. Logically justifiable in their situation, but complete and utter overreach in ours. The peace at home our military has fought for and won over the years is what enables us to enjoy our constitutional freedoms and live without fear of attack; Israel has not yet achieved this.

TCB

What's drastic?

Remove the restrictions against carrying on school property. Make schools the same as the other 394,492 places where legal carriers may be armed. Also make it so that public schools cannot punish teachers solely for being armed on school property. That's it. Nothing drastic. Just like with carry in general, those teachers and faculty/staff who prefer to be armed will take it upon themselves to do so.

 

[academy]

barnbwt, raises for teachers? That's rich. Next you'll be talking about discovering cold fusion or your new flying eagle/wild hog crossbreeds.

If they give the teachers more responsibility, they'll require more training and I'd bet my teaching license that they won't give trained teachers a dime more.

 

[MachIVshooter]

My beef with visibly armed security at schools has nothing to do with trusting them; It's that with a shooter bent on doing harm, they'll simply be the first victims. I doubt many school districts could afford to employ enough guards that they become a serious deterrent rather than the first targets.

More to the point, there are about 130,000 K-12 schools in the USA. There have been an average of 7 major school shootings per decade since 1974. Though each one is tragic and heartwrenching, these incidents are statistically insignificant. There are many far greater threats to our kids than active school shooters. About 55,000 people 18 years of age or less will have died this year, with about 4,000 of them in the age group of the 20 slain at Sandy Hook Elementary. Drowning, accidental poisoning and motor vehicle accidents are the leading causes of non-illness deaths of people under the age of 10. Firearm homicides account for less than 1%.

I am not at all trying to belittle these tragedies in any way, just saying we need to keep it in perspective. Your 3rd grader is far more likely to be hit by a car than shot in the classroom, so spend more time talking to him/her about safely crossing the road than evading an active shooter at school.

 

[barnbwt]

What's drastic?

I meant drastic as in teachers having select fire rifles slung over their shoulders at all times--not quite necessary (yet) for this nation's domestic problems. We also don't need APVs patrolling the streets, face-checking camera arrays, blast proof walls or a zillion other things the Israelies have been forced to deal with. It's a testament to how well secured our nation currently is that we don't require these things for safety.

Warp, the "common sense gun measures" you describe sound perfectly reasonable (see what I did there )

barnbwt, raises for teachers? That's rich. Next you'll be talking about discovering cold fusion or your new flying eagle/wild hog crossbreeds.

Who told you? That's seriously classified stuff!

If teachers were certified as security guards in addition to putting up with everything from bratty kids to aggressive teenagers, all the while meeting test/rating criteria, you would have very good standing to demand a pay increase. I wouldn't expect that all schools could afford to arm their teachers, but some probably could, and they would pay the highest wages and attract the most teachers. As it stands, Gun Free Schools prevents even the possibility of such a scenario from showing us the answer. Schools for sure can't afford to employ cops on top of teachers in meaningful numbers.

Besides, Academy, you're a teacher and on a gun-forum already; wouldn't this just be easy money for you? A chance to shoot guns on the clock, and get some free training that is useful outside the classroom?

TCB

 

[Warp]

I meant drastic as in teachers having select fire rifles slung over their shoulders at all times--not quite necessary (yet) for this nation's domestic problems.

Sounds like a straw man. Can you quote where somebody here suggested that, please?

Warp, the "common sense gun measures" you describe sound perfectly reasonable (see what I did there )

No, I don't see what you did. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have something to say, or a point to make...just do it/say it.

 

[Shimitup]

Has anyone seen this. Unlikely that such as the CT. tragedy would ever happen here.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html

 

[1911 guy]

I'm in favor of arming the faculty rather than police in schools for one reason alone. Money. It would be prohibitively expensive to have enough cops in each building in a district to be of any meaningful effect. If you hire one cop, I'm willing to bet that he'd probably take the job seriously and do it well. That's the case all over the country where districts have School Resource Officers. But the dynamic changes significantly when you have several teachers or other faculty actually with the students during class, in the halls during class changes and maybe even the janitor wandering the halls when most others are in class.

If you can cough up the money in your district to hire more police, go for it. I live in a small town and would much rather see incentive pay for teachers to get armed and trained. The vast majority of teachers took the job because they like kids. The only roadblock to getting most of them on board with the idea is the ideology many of them hold. Educate the educators and we're halfway there.

 

[Apachedriver]

Here's the article Shimitup posted the link for above.

Texas school where teachers carry guns prepared to protect students
Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 2012

BY BILL MILLER
[email protected]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged school districts to review their plans to ensure they are prepared to respond to incidents such as the horrific shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday.

David Thweatt, superintendent of the tiny Harrold school district in northwest Texas, believes his staff is ready.

Besides special locks and security cameras, an undisclosed number of staff members and teachers carry concealed handguns.

Thweatt said the "guardian plan," which drew international attention when it was implemented in 2008, definitely enhances student safety.

"Is that 100 percent? No," Thweatt said Friday in a telephone interview. "Nothing is 100 percent. But what we do know is that we've done all we can to protect our children."

At the time the plan was put in place, Harrold, about 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, was the only known public school district in Texas and the U.S. that allowed staff members and teachers to carry concealed weapons. Thweat said he knows of some other districts that have since adopted similar policies, but declined to name them.

Harrold school officials do not announce which teachers are "packing" and those participating must have proper concealed carry licenses. They must also be approved by the school board to carry on school grounds.

Board members approved the measure because the district is at least 20 minutes from the nearest station of the Wilbarger County Sheriff's Department.

The district has one school, with about 110 students and 15 teachers, according to the Texas Education Agency.

"We have one entry to the school," Thweatt said, adding that special locks can be activated from his office. "We also have the cameras, but we didn't have anything to deal with an active shooter."

The guardian plan was researched for more than a year before the school board considered it. Some board members didn't like it.

"My board at first didn't want to be the poster child for this," he said.

But Thweatt said he wanted to minimize casualties that could quickly increase while waiting for deputies. He didn't want a plan where you "lock yourself in your closet and hope that an intruder won't hurt you. So what we came up with was a policy that would protect."

Still, the strategy draws criticism from people who "don't believe guns, kids and schools mix," Thweatt said.

There has not been an incident on his campus, and Thweatt doesn't expect one.

He said his heart was heavy after learning of Friday's shooting in Connecticut, in which 20 elementary school students were killed by a 20-year-old gunman.

"It's just tearing me up," he said. "...I have children of my own. I can't stand to think of my little guys just getting slaughtered like that. My heart just bleeds for these people."

 

[leadcounsel]

Solution is easy. Ccw for employees. Free. Easy. Effective deterrents.

 

[Warp]

Solution is easy. Ccw for employees. Free. Easy. Effective deterrents.

You mean remove the restriction on legal carriers being armed on school property?

 

[academy]

barnbwt, I can guarantee if Texas passed anything state-wide or even in my particular neck of the woods, I'd be first in line to get certified. I just don't expect it to ever happen, and if it did, I think it would be far more likely that administration would place draconian requirements/restrictions on it, like owning a handgun in DC, so they can claim compliance, but still stonewall. And like I said, I'd bet my license they'd make you pay out-of-pocket for it.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Armed security guards are probably not going to be very useful. About 6 years ago, before I got into actual LE, I was an armed guard and one of my postings was at a Jewish Community Center that actually operated a K-6th Grade school. So I've actually done the armed school guard thing for about a year, though not at a public school. According to my company, and every other security company that I know of, my role was to act as a deterrent. Many security companies have a fairly strict policy to fire any armed guards who actually use their weapons on duty. It was in our company policy that I had to sign that I acknowledge my weapon is for self defense only and that any and all use of force will be viewed both legally and by the company as if it was any other self defense shooting. Seems pretty sensible legally of course. Security guards are not police. They're just regular civilians doing a job that happens to involve a lot of standing around with a gun. But if things ever go south, they're on their own. Armed security at that level is first and foremost, a way to lower insurance costs. Not an actual means to stop criminals. If they do actually get involved in something, the company will cut them lose ASAP. That sort of policy does not encourage defending others.

There is also the "you get what you pay for" effect when it comes to security guards. Private security can be anything from $8.00 and hour mall cops to Blackwater personal security details. And the quality of security guard is very much correlated to how much it costs to employ them. The vast majority of people working as security guards, armed or not, range from average-bottom of the barrel types.

If there is actual a public policy in some school district that some sort of armed guard be present at the school, it would basically have to be sworn LE to be of any real value. LE have the authority to be proactive, the legal protection when something does happen, the authority to make arrests, a support network for backup, access to much better weapons, armor, radios, etc than almost all security guards would have.

I'm firmly in favor of lifting all restrictions regarding the carrying of firearms on school property. If that teacher, administrator, or parent is not a murderer when they're not at school, they're not going to suddenly become one just because they crossed some property line. And if they are, the law won't stop them anyways. So go ahead and let any teacher, school staff, or visiting parent carry with a CCW license (or Constitutional Carry as it really should be) just like they might at Wal-Mart or the gas station. But if the school is going to get actual guards with the mission of actually stopping a shooting while it's happening, I would steer clear of private security. If the district is willing to shell out the money to get decently trained, equipped and professional guards to do the job right, they might as well just spend the money on police. And even the decent guards don't have arrest authority or legal protection.

 

[barnbwt]

It was in our company policy that I had to sign that I acknowledge my weapon is for self defense only and that any and all use of force will be viewed both legally and by the company as if it was any other self defense shooting.

That is exactly why there should be an armed person in every (or nearly every) room of any place as crowded with the "defenseless" as an elementary school. Under any circumstance (at least that I can imagine) of an armed attack on a classroom, the teacher within would be easily withing their rights to engage, as well as anyone in the vicinity (since bullets go through walls). I always thought it was a bit much to expect an officer/guard to trapse all the way across campus (through crushing crowds running away, no doubt) to engage a shooter from a tactical disadvantage (non-defensive position). I believe there is also some legal precedent (Supreme Court?) stating even sworn police officers are not obligated to recklessly endanger themselves in the line of duty.

Unlike police officers, (I believe) teachers are legally responsible for the wellfare of their charges, which would suggest making them "defenders" of the same a logical extension of this line of thought.

"Sounds like a straw man. Can you quote where somebody here suggested that, please?"
I'm merely saying we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, or adopt someone else's baby along with its bathwater. When Israel's security apparatus is brought up, many people forget how restrictive it makes life (not that anyone suggested this; my point was "pre-emptive"). The armed school teacher is one facet of said apparatus I believe we could find use for, but I also believe mere concealed carry weapons would provide sufficient protection for our situation.

"Warp, the "common sense gun measures" you describe sound perfectly reasonable (see what I did there )"
"No, I don't see what you did. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have something to say, or a point to make...just do it/say it. "
--Perhaps my non-vocal inflection was unclear (though I did use a "" instead of a to your comment), but I meant to satirize the anti-gun folks' refrain their propostions are "common sense," by stating yours are "common sense" as far as I am concerned. Many of the Brady Campaign would think your ideas psychotic, as we think theirs. It was a light-hearted comment in the face of all this dense, heavy, dour talk that gets a bit hard to take at length. I apologize for any levity, or lack of clarity.
"That photo would scare the bejesus out of the liberal populace that elected the pres. "
--I'm not the only one who sees the odd juxtaposition of a kind school marm with happy younguns, and a select fire rifle slung over her shoulder for their protection. Even in a tense debate, it's good to exhale once in a while.

I can guarantee if Texas passed anything state-wide or even in my particular neck of the woods, I'd be first in line to get certified. I just don't expect it to ever happen

Is this something you think teachers groups or unions should get behind (as a workplace safety measure, if nothing else)? Tell your reps this is something they need to fight for, and you may be suprised what comes of it. Like all Second Amendment rights, those of teachers must be fought for to be liberated from restrictions. I honestly think this may be the "policy centerpiece" the NRA is undoubtedly seeking as a counterpoint to their opposition (that is, if the NRA isn't actually in favor of more restrictions at this point).

TCB

 

[Warp]

I always thought it was a bit much to expect an officer/guard to trapse all the way across campus (through crushing crowds running away, no doubt) to engage a shooter from a tactical disadvantage (non-defensive position).

What percentage of K-12 schools have a "campus" that would have to be traversed?

The larger universities, that would have a large campus to traverse, usually have their own force of sworn peace officers

 

[barnbwt]

My highschool had over 3000 students; other Texas schools have over 5000. Factor in a stampede and ignorance of the shooter's position and it could easily take a while for an officer to confront an armed intruder. It took me about five minutes to get from class at one end of the building to the cafeteria each day-- and that's with traffic flowing my way and not in a panicked frenzy.

Modern suburban schools often have separate wings joined by narrow "choke points" and multiple floors. Much like hospitals, actually. I'd agree fewer officers would be needed for a smaller building. Allowing teachers (if formal training is not feasible) to CC seems the most direct, cheap, immediate, and effective solution to the security problem. I was only kinda sure of this at first, but the more I talk through it, the more it makes logical sense (at least, to me).

The larger universities, that would have a large campus to traverse, usually have their own force of sworn peace officers

Texas A&M has over 50,000 students these days (I think) and at most a few dozen officers of various stripes (mostly bike traffic-enforcers when I was there) scattered about, typically concentrated at the entrance streets (again, for traffic enforcement). Several years ago I was there in a building next door when a shooter was supposedly seen entering the Chemistry building. The alert went out five minutes after the event was reported, and the building and surrounding areas were not cleared for us until some 30 minutes afterward. I never saw officers enter my building during this time (again, next door). I would much rather have had the means to defend myself on my hip or in the room, than maybe maybe not arriving before the attacker. (PS there was no attacker, after all. They had another bogus incident like this several months ago as well, IIRC)

TCB

 

[leadcounsel]

Putting ANY armed response (teachers, CCW, guards, etc.) will serve as enough deterrant to thrwart off all but the most motivated murderers. They'll choose a softer target if they see signs out front that say that there is an armed response inside.